DAL7e7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 357 posts, RR: 4 Posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8632 times:
I just got a new laptop. HP Pavilion dv4 w/ 380GB HD, 4GB RAM, and 1.7GB Video Memory and Windows Vista. I was wondering if it would be more beneficial to put FS9 or FSX on it. On my desktop, I'm having loads of FSX problems with a much faster machine.
Any input is appreciated.
DAL7e7 is wondering... Do pilots take crash courses?
Jasond From Australia, joined Jul 2009, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 8526 times:
Generally on most comparable configurations FS9 will run faster than FS-X, the margin will vary. I still use FS9 on a Core2Duo 2.8Ghz (4Gb Ram) with a 9600 and it runs really well 50+ fps everywhere with everything on. I also ran it on a similar spec on a laptop and it ran slower 30+ fps but the difference was naturally the graphics capability. Once you get to Core2 the difference is always the GPU. I can't comment on FSX as I tried it briefly, didn't like it and sold it on. Just seemed a bit generic and 'cartoony' for me.
FlyMIA From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 6761 posts, RR: 6 Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8500 times:
FS9 will be your best bet with the laptop, but it can mess up a little bit with vista in my experience I was only FSUPIC was not installed which messed up some add on's just had to reinstall it. I run FS9 on a 6 year old Sony Desktop and plan on running it on it for a few more years until I am out of school and get a job etc.. I only get 20fps but it is still works fine. Only problem I have is loading up newer add ons but once they are loaded I dont have any problems.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4302 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8463 times:
If I read correctly that your Laptop has a video adapter with 1.7 GB of dedicated RAM, FSX should do very well. If these 1.7 GB are shared forget FSX. FSX needs a real grafics adapter with 320 MB of dedicated video RAM, then it is way faster than FS) to display the same. But putting the huge high resolution textures over a shared memory bus is no good idea.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4302 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8410 times:
No way. Even with the best FS9 addons out there, FS9 grafics are limited significantly. As long as you stick to large airports and airliners, the difference is less visible, but when it comes to scenery, bush flying or even photo scenery FS9 is just a cartoon compared to FSX.
One when you feed FSX with FS9 content, this does not look better.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4302 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8374 times:
Quoting DAL7e7 (Reply 7): Well, not exactly, but I can get it close, right?
No. With FS9 ground textures have a pixel size of 5x5m, with FSX almost everything is possible - and you need 1x1 or at least 2x2 to recognize a railway. In FS9, railway lines are 50 m wide and still hard to recognize. No way to make a scenery for FS9 that has a resolution that is not 25 times worse than what Google Earth has for most of the world now.
3d Objects doen't show proper reflections of the sun and other primary light sources, ...
Compare the richness and detail of FSX autogen with the low resolution primitive stuff in FS9.
The step from FS9 to FSX is like from a Cessna 150 to an A380.
FS8/9 use the same principle grafics, and that just is almost 10 years old now.
I use FSX heavily every day, and have only once had a series of crashes that I could pin down to a mistype I made in an aircraft.cfg file. FSX after SP2 is the most stable and reliable MSFS I ever had, and I produce FS addons since FS5.1 .
yes! i was quite pissed at myself initially. i bought a new PC just for FSX (pretty decent specs) and either have to really water the graphics settings or suffer with a really slow frame rate. so, i still use FS9 and enjoy it thoroughly.
and yeah, i reinstalled it several times, tried to optimize everything, and nothing helped. thanks mircrosoft
"The chief cause of failure and unhappiness is trading what you want most for what you want now." -Zig Ziglar